Thanks for referencing our 2014 key issues research in your latest blog post. You make an interesting point but unfortunately we do not ask for the respondent’s age in our survey . . . Given that over 50% are VP and above, I don’t think we can draw a direct line yet to the shift in focus being generational… versus evolutionary. Happy to discuss more and certainly something worth exploring in future research. – Patrick Connaughton | Senior Research Director | The Hackett Group

Two of the great lessons I have learned in life is that 1. the more I know, the more I realize I still need to know and, 2. always try to view information from many different perspectives even if doing so is out of the norm or raises eyebrows. These to me are the true foundations for gaining knowledge and important insight.

Shortly after my post regarding the Hackett Group’s most recent study was published, I received an e-mail from their Senior Research Director Patrick Connaughton. Beyond the speed of their response, Hackett’s willingness to not only consider expanding their research to include what I consider to be a key metric but to also provide additional information, demonstrates that they also have a similar view with regard to both obtaining and sharing knowledge. This to me speaks volumes, and adds a level of creditability to their research that quite frankly I find lacking in the majority of reports from other analyst firms (refer to my January 7th, 2011 post Madison Avenue ooops . . . make that Gartner, names Oracle as a leader in supply chain planning).

This doesn’t mean that I will always agree with Hackett’s or for that matter any analyst firms’ findings i.e. supplier consolidation. However, and even in disagreement – which I believe is essential to providing true insight on a particular topic, I can at least with Hackett respect the intent of their process if not accepting the outcome.

By the way, here is the additional data regarding those involved in the study’s research:

C-level – 24%

VP – 28%

Director – 33%

Manager – 11%

Other – 4%

While we do need more information, I am at this stage inclined to agree with Patrick’s position that given the level of the procurement professional within the organization who took the survey, the generational impact is not a dominant factor. On a side note, t Kelly Barner and I are co-authoring a book The Future of Procurement (#FutureBuy) which provides a view of where the industry is headed from both a female and male perspective, I wonder if gender also plays a role here? Take it away Kelly . . .

Here is my (completely non-scientific) read on The Hackett group’s findings and their respondents. I’m going to make the assumption that the majority of the respondents at the C- and VP-levels, which represent over half of the pool, are male. That being said, I don’t think that the findings of the report, as quoted from Chris Sawchuk in Jon’s original post on the subject, have nothing to do with gender. I can see the writing on the wall just as clearly as my male counterparts. The combination of collaborative negotiation, tactical outsourcing, and emphasis on value have to bring about change in our profession.

Where I do think there is a HUGE opportunity is in the non-traditional skills that will be sought going forward. In my opinion, the three factors I listed above actually favor women. In his 2012 book ‘Common Sense Supply Management’ Dr. Tom DePaoli wrote,

“Women have, by far, better relationship-building skills than men. This is not meant to stereotype genders – it is just a skill set that most women are a lot better at than most men. Supply management depends on relationship building, especially with suppliers.”

Responsive procurement organizations will spend more time dealing in the subjective than ever before. As The Hackett Group noted, we have maxed out the impact we can have through traditional approaches, most of which included line item negotiations. Building relationships requires patience and an awareness of details and changes that are not easily represented on paper. While I agree with Dr. Tom’s qualification that you can’t over-generalize, women excel at reading people and sensing their reactions, super powers that are hard to use in an eSourcing solution dominant environment.

If I’m right (and of course I think I am), procurement organizations must find people who will thrive on subjectivity and collaboration. Women are naturally wired to do so – all we have to do is answer the phone when procurement calls. Maybe if The Hackett Group revisits this topic in 2020, my assumption about leadership level procurement will no longer be valid.

You are definitely on to something Kelly – which by the way is ironic on so many different levels.

In general terms and outside of the procurement world, I find it somewhat amusing that there exists the belief that women need to be more like men to climb the corporate latter. The fact is that as we move towards a more relational interaction that eschews the you don’t get what you deserve you get what you negotiate mindset, women’s inherent “soft” skill sets are going to become increasingly important. So to all the women who remained true to themselves and who they are, and did not buy into having to adopt a man’s attitude in business, there is a payoff in the not too distant future.

This said, and within the context of procurement, it would appear at least in part that men have been the obstacle to the procurement profession as a whole moving forward. Especially when you consider IACCM’s Tim Cummins post – about which we have talked many times – in which he shares the fact that at the negotiating table senior execs from all sides of a transaction tend to lie to one another about what they can do, in what time frame it can be accomplished and for how much it will cost. I somehow believe that with the evolution to a more collaborative approach we will not only see the shift in focus referenced in the Hackett report, but perhaps an expansion of focus into areas that we have not yet considered.

Let me clarify. Women are far superior in relationship building and getting people to cooperate and problem solve together. Negotiation at the strategic level should not be considered a “contest” or sporting event. Unfortunately, many men view it in this manner. At the strategic level it is more about making breakthroughs together and getting a unique competitive advantag, that your paying customers cannot ignore. You desire what I call “leapfrog” breakthroughs, not wins and losses. Again, we do not want to stereotype, but from my experiences, most women have far superior relationship building skills. Don’t confuse this with the old fashion beat up your opponent adversarial negotiation methodology. This is appropriate for some situations. But it rarely results in breakthroughs.
I explain this in more detail in my books.

Thank you Dr. DePaoli for your thoughtful input regarding this most interesting and as it turns out, thought provoking topic.

Personally I also tend to lean towards Roz Usheroff’s sentiments – which I do not believe are all that different to yours – and in particular her closing paragraph which states;

“I am of course not suggesting that the negotiation pendulum swing so dramatically so as to relegate men to the role of spectator. What I do believe is that most men have a wonderful ability to learn and to adapt to a new reality. This means that as the situation or circumstances change, men too can alter their approach to negotiating so that they can’ along with women, focus on achieving the best outcome for everyone.”

This I believe supports the breakthrough approach to which you and your book refers.